MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3212427745 · doi:10.1002/cjas.1650

Reminders of money increase patient empowerment

2021· article· en· W3212427745 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Jodie Whelan, Miranda Goode

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Administrative Sciences / Revue Canadienne des Sciences de l Administration · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicBehavioral Health and Interventions
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEmpowermentAutonomyTransparency (behavior)LegislationBusinessPatient EmpowermentReactanceHealth carePsychologySocial psychologyPolitical scienceLawEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The passage of price transparency legislation in the US combined with efforts to enhance the customer experience suggest that patients are more likely to encounter reminders of money when thinking about and making healthcare decisions. Because money is symbolically and empirically associated with empowerment, we propose that money reminders in the healthcare domain will increase patient empowerment. Across three experiments, we find that reminding people of money increases patient empowerment, as indicated by an established patient empowerment scale (Study 1), heightened desire for autonomy when making healthcare decisions (Study 2), and greater reactance to imagining a doctor's refusal to prescribe a requested drug (Study 3). We show that this effect is attenuated when the health condition is serious (as opposed to minor).

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.148
GPT teacher head0.401
Teacher spread0.253 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Administrative Sciences / Revue Canadienne des Sciences de l Administration→Same topicBehavioral Health and Interventions→French-language works237,207→